Propaganda in the News

muppetkiller

I don't normally go into the whole US cover up of details in Iraq etc... but I could help but be disgusted with two articles I read this morning about the deaths of 2 us troops...


Here's the report from sky news..
The Iraqi Defence Ministry said the bodies of the two soldiers showed signs of
being tortured and the men had been killed in a "barbaric" way.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organisation of five terrorist groups
led by al Qaeda in Iraq, suggested the men had been beheaded.
"It's very upsetting to me that they would give you details of the torture, of
the beheading," said Mario Vasquez, Pfc Menchaca's uncle.
His mother Maria Vasquez issued a statement saying: "I am against the war and I
feel very hurt by what has happened to my son."
Pfc Tucker's family also issued a statement, saying they were devastated by the
news but heartened by the community support.
"Tom has gained a much larger family through this ordeal than he had when he
left home to go help to free the Iraqi people and protect his country from the
threat of terrorism," the family said.
More on This Story:

Now here's the horrible part this is from CNN

Families 'devastated'
Menchaca's aunt told CNN the family had been notified of his death.

Menchaca's uncle, Mario Vasquez, said family members were distraught and were waiting to receive the body before making any arrangements.

Earlier, some family members heard of a possible discovery through the media, before being notified by the military, Vasquez said.

He called for the military to retaliate swiftly against the kidnappers.

"I wish they'd punish the people that do these kinds of things right away, instead of taking forever and spending millions of dollars," Vasquez said.

"I think you capture them, make them pay for what they did. Don't think that it's just two more soldiers. Don't negotiate anything. They [the killers] didn't."

How on earth can we have one report saying how the family was against the war and the US report saying the families want revenge and no mercy should be shown ?

Two links
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13529222,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/20/soldiers.missing/index.html

Two completely different reports I think you'll agree ...what do you guys think..

ionapaul

The uncle says one thing, the mother says another...seems like a lot of families to me!

muppetkiller

Yes but which one is mentioned in the US news ...

Eoin

muppetkiller wrote:

Yes but which one is mentioned in the US news ...

Yes, but doesn't that US news station have an anti-Republican leaning (it was nicknamed the "Clinton News Network" when he was in power)?

And while I'm at it, isn't Sky part of the Fox news network (or the other way around), which would have a distinctly pro-Republican leaning?

I think all you really have are comments from two different networks in two different countries quoting two different people - both of whom are obviously distraught after losing a relative.

P.S. there is a News/Media forum here.

ionapaul

If I wanted to create a headline, I use the angry uncle hoping for blood before the grieving mother wishing forgiveness and peace!

I don't think you can point the finger and say 'propaganda' in this instance - it is not like Bush's evil regime has planted this story or spun the family's reaction to suit their own nefarious needs...beside, they are probably too busy planning ways to sap and inpurify your body's precious bodily fluids

monkeyfudge

Although the first news report does feature the family regurgitating propaganda in regards to freeing Iraq and keeping the US Safe from terrorism.

Dragan

muppetkiller wrote:

How on earth can we have one report saying how the family was against the war and the US report saying the families want revenge and no mercy should be shown ?

Quite easily in fact. I have several friends currently on Tour in Iraq.....i'm not happy about the war but you can bet if anything happened to them i would want whoever did it punished with some good old fashioned frontier justice.

I'm not saying it makes sense, it's just the way it is. I don't like the war in Iraq, i don't like the apparent lies that were told to justify it and i don't like that my friends go over for 8 month tours and are told they will be staying for 18.

Sure, you can say "don't join the army" but none of them are objecting to the possibility of them being killed, i am!

As one of my friends said...." I don't mind being killed over here, as stupid as that sounds. I knew the risks....it's being over here for so long, or the orders not making sense, or the supplies not being here. That's just bull****."

muppetkiller

True but why not include both comments in the reports..

Dragan

muppetkiller wrote:

True but why not include both comments in the reports..

Because if your reporting then you have an angle i suppose. Everyone, including reports and political editors etc etc, they all have opinions and there opinions will always colour what it is they are trying to tell us.

This will happen whether they mean it to or not. I'm sure not all of them do so conciously, and many journalists try and be impartial as they can be....but it doesn't always work out that way.

Most newspapers/new sites have some kind of political leaning and stories will be edited accordling.

Eoin

Dragan wrote:

Because if your reporting then you have an angle i suppose. Everyone, including reports and political editors etc etc, they all have opinions and there opinions will always colour what it is they are trying to tell us.

If anything, as I alluded to earlier, the two news agencies should swap reports, going by their usual "angles".

bonkey

muppetkiller wrote:

True but why not include both comments in the reports..

Are you suggesting that "good" reportnig would be where all stations report exactly the same aspects of the same events?

Who gets to decide what bits? How do they decide? How can the public then know that something important wasn't omitted?

The benefit to me -as a news-consumer - of havnig multiple news sources each of whom will offer a different take on events seems to be exactly what you are seeing as a problem.

As for the various statements made by the family, I can understand a lot fo the frustration.

This is a war where Americans killed in action are not shown on tv. Even the return of their coffins to US soil is barred from the cameras, lest we show disrespect or whatever. Yet when these two Americans are captured, tortured and killed, the information of how brutally they were treated is spread all over the media even before the family were notified.

This constitutes - in my opinion - legitimate grounds for much of the complaint and anger expressed. I also see a lot of the "quick justice" comments more as an attack on the mediafication and politicisation of these two attacks. The family seem to be saying "go and do your job instead of playing to the cameras and pandering to wussy liberals who will object to hitting anyone hard for anything" more than "I support the war and all they are doing".

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

Are you suggesting that "good" reportnig would be where all stations report exactly the same aspects of the same events?

Who gets to decide what bits? How do they decide? How can the public then know that something important wasn't omitted?

he was saying that they should report the WHOLE story. then the question of which bits to include doesn't come into it. if all the stations tell the whole story they'll all report the same thing and rightly so

astrofool

then the problem is who writes the WHOLE story? A wizard?

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

he was saying that they should report the WHOLE story. then the question of which bits to include doesn't come into it. i

You're right. That particular question doesn't come into it.

The question rather becomes one of what constitutes the whole story. We must also ask who decides what that is, and just how many of them one can print and/or read in a single day.

We would also have to get rid of the concept of having reporters working for media companies, otherwise all investigators of a story would have to meet, collate their information, agree on the results, and so on and so forth.

And lets completely ignore what happens when someone tries to suppress news or introduce information they know to be incorrect simply to further an agenda. I mean...whether we take majority voting, vetoing, or any other mechanism to decide what gets included / excluded, someone can work the system to make sure the truth is spun.

Personally, I'd rather have 10 reporters give me 10 versions and allow me to make up my mind about the information, then for the 10 of them to meet behind the scenes, agree on what will be presented, and I'm left with no choice but to accept their word that what I'm getting is the "full" version.

Ina world of perfect information, the idea of all reports agreeing would be feasable. Of course, a world of perfect information is about th one situation where this wouldn't actually be of any benefit.

WhiteWashMan

maybe they didnt have the quote form the one but did from the other?

perhaps they just didnt want to put it in?

maybe they should go further down the line and interview the killers and get their angles on it?